TK 

118 ** 

Ozse. 

Qppy z 












REPORT 


OF THE 


SELECT COMMITTEE 


TO INVESTIGATE 


CHARGES OF BRIBERY 


IN CONNECTION WITH THE ELECTION OF 


HON. HENRY B. PAYNE 


AS UNITED STATES SENATOR, 


BY THE 


SIXTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF OHIO, 

u! It • ■ - o 


TO THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 


OF THE 


Sixty-Seventh General Assembly. 


COLUMBUS, O.: 
1886. 






























R E P O R T 


ac tcLm »■ r«^. 

SELECT COMMITTEE 






TO INVESTIGATE 

CHARGES OF BRIBERY 


IN CONNECTION WITH THE ELECTION OF 


HON. HENRY B. PAYNE 


AS UNITED STATES SENATOR, 

BY THE 


SIXTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF OHIO, 


TO THE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OF THE 

Sixty-Seventh General Assembly. 


COLUMBUS, O.: 
1886. 










Sixty-seventh General Assembly of Ohio, > 
House of Representatives. > 

Adopted January 13, 1886. 

Whereas, The Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, of date January 
12, 1886, contains a printed statement, on the authority of S. K. 
Donavin, alleging grave charges against the official integrity and 
character of certain members of this House, namely: Hon. D. 
Baker, Hon. P. Hunt, Hon. W. A. Schultz, and Hon. Mr. Zeigler, 
so definite and precise in statement as to call for immediate action, 
in order to vindicate the reputation of members of this House; 
therefore 

Resolved , That a Select Committee of five be appointed, to in¬ 
quire into all the facts of the charges so alleged, and report their 
conclusions to this House at as early a date as possible; and in 
the prosecution of this inquiry said Select Committee are empow¬ 
ered to send for persons and papers, and to examine witnesses 
under oath. 

Attest: David Lanning, 

Clerk of House. 


COMMITTEE : 

Thomas A. Cowgill, Chairman. 
George C. Rawlins. 

Emmett Tompkins, Secretary. 
Charles M. LeBlond. 

E. B. Hubbard. 



REPORT. 


The Select Committee appointed in pursuance of H. R. No. 28, 
adopted by the House January 13, 1886, relating to charges of 
jeij in connection with the election of Henry B. Payne as 
United States Senator by the Sixty-sixth General Assembly of the 
State ot Ohio, submit the following report, and therewith, for 
reference, a copy of said resolution. 

• 

SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY. 

Although but four persons, and they members of the present 
House, are named in the resolution, and the committee is required 
b}’ its terms to investigate and report concerning them only, it 
was found necessary to extend the inquiry beyond this limit, in 
order to gain something like a comprehensive view of the situa¬ 
tion pertaining to said election. 

The contest preceding the election referred to will, doubtless, 
pass into political history as being without a parallel in some of 
its features. The Democracy had a majority in each house of the 
General Assembly. Hon. George H. Pendleton, a man of emi¬ 
nent distinction in his party, was the Senator from Ohio whose 
term would next expire, and, quite naturally, was anxious to be 
his own successor; and General Durbin Ward, also prominent 
and distinguished in the same party, was ambitious to be chosen 
to fill that high office. They were the only candidates publicly 
spoken of in their party prior, and for several weeks subsequent, 
to the October election, at which members of the Legislature 
were chosen. The testimony shows that some time in the month 



4 


following, or early in December, Hon. Henry 13. Payne was 
announced as a candidate, although he was generally believed to 
have retired several years ago from active participation in politics, 
and that he desired no further preferment of a political character. 
With but little premonition, so far as observed by the public, his 
candidacy came upon the party with a force and character that 
challenged the ability of the friends of the other candidates to 
withstand. There seemed to be something in its character calcu¬ 
lated to overawe them, and to crush opposition. Messengers were 
found to be traversing the State in the interest of the candidacy 
of Mr. Payne, as the testimony shows. Newspapers suddenly 
changed position in his favor, and avowed friends of the other 
candidates were found to be wavering or to have deserted. This 
force continued to increase in power; and when the time came to 
organize the General Assembly it seemed almost hopeless to 
attempt to combat it successfully. One witness compared it to 
“ a stonewall that you could not see over or get around.” A 
Democratic member of that and also of the present General 
Assemblv testified that members u could not resist the force of 
the lobby that was here urging the claims of Mr. Payne. Of 
course it was fictitious. I don’t believe it was backed by the real 
sentiment of the people, and I think now, after two years, and 
speaking calmly and deliberately, that Mr. Payne, in my judg¬ 
ment, was nominated against the protest of the party of the 
State. * * * The fact of the matter was, in the general stam¬ 

pede that was being made here, and the pressure that was brought 
to bear,a man could hardly rely upon himself. It took continued 
prompting to have me feel that I was not a Payne man myself. 

* The Standard Oil Company, with its officers and work¬ 
ers, were here in force. The Secretary and the Treasurer of the 
company were here, and there was the unlimited use of money 
to bring the friends of every member of the Legislature here from 
their own counties, for the purpose of laboring with them to sup¬ 
port Mr. Payne.” This force, whatever is the secret of its pecu¬ 
liar strength, has not fully expended even itself yet; and this fact, 


5 


in connection with the character of the methods both rumored and 
charged to have been employed, rendered the work of the com¬ 
mittee unusually difficult and perplexing. 

Bribery is not easily proven. Our laws make the giver and 
taker of a bribe equally guilty, and visit both with the same pen¬ 
alty, which is doubtless just, but the effect of which is to bind the 
guilty parties together in a bond of secrecy that neither can break 
without imperiling his own liberty. When the crime has been 
determined upon and committed deliberately, the parties thereto 
will adopt eveiy means to conceal it—not only such ingenuity as 
is exercised by criminals in the preparation and commission of 
crime, but perjury as well to prevent its discovery ; so that it is 
only by circumstantial evidence—by unguarded and unintentional 
admissions, or by the sudden and undue acquisition of property, 
and other significant circumstances, and rarely by direct evidence, 
that the charge can be sustained. 

Difficulties have been encountered at every stage of the invest¬ 
igation. Witnesses who were reported to have made specific 
statements, either failed to remember them when questioned, or 
denied emphatically having made them. Leading actors in be¬ 
half of the successful candidate, including those generally re¬ 
ported to possess knowledge of the corruption suspected in con¬ 
nection with the election, have kept themselves beyond the juris¬ 
diction of the House and the process of the committee. The 
testimony adduced has been drawn largely from apparently un¬ 
willing witnesses, who, doubtless, because of business, social, or 
political relations, seemed reluctant to testify. 

Whenever our attention was called to anything which indi¬ 
cated the probable employment of improper means to gain sup¬ 
port, we followed the clews presented, on the theory that we were 
not only authorized, but in duty bound, to pursue any matter that 
promised, even remotely, to show the use of such means in con¬ 
nection with the election, because the discovery of one important 
fact, although having no immediate bearing upon the charge 


6 


against the persons named in the resolution, might lead to the 
discovery of facts having such bearing. And furthermore, and 
upon the same theory, our inquiries were not confined to the tech¬ 
nical rules of legal proof, but the committee availed itself of any 
source of information—admitted heresay statements, and even 
the opinions of witnesses. But we consider that in making this 
report no facts should be stated which are not sustained by testi¬ 
mony upon which a legislative body might base further action. 

RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION. 

However, although we find that the charge against the four 
members of this House named in the resolution has not been sus¬ 
tained, certain facts have been developed which we believe to be 
of sufficient significance to report to the House for disposition as 
hereinafter suggested. 

There is a general concurrence of testimony upon the following 
points: 

1. That the candidacy of Henry B. Pavne for United States 
Senator was not made known publicly until a considerable time 
after the general election of 1883, at which members of the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly were chosen. 

2. That suspicion and charges of the employment of illegal 
means to secure the election of the successful candidate for Sen¬ 
ator were very prevalent near the time of, and for weeks after, 
the Senatorial election, and that in many instances the suspicion 
amounted almost to conviction. 

3. That as to choice of Senatorial candidates among members of 
the General Assembly, there were numerous remarkable changes, 
difficult to account for without assuming the use of unusual induce¬ 
ments. 

Mention is made of this concurrence of testimonv, for the rea- 
son that the points specified have a general bearing upon several 
matters that follow. 


PAYNE HEADQUARTERS. 


Another matter as to which witnesses agreed, so far as ques¬ 
tioned in regard to it, is that one David R. Paige was recognized 
as a contidential manager for the successful candidate for Sena- 
tor. The testimony shows that Mr. Paige occupied a room—a 
double room—at the Neil House, in the city of Columbus, for 
several days immediately preceding, and until after, the election 
of Henry B. Payne. In this connection the following testimony 
is here cited: 

James Boyle, correspondent of the Cincinnati Commercial Ga¬ 
zette testified that a business man in the city of Columbus related 
to him the following in substance: “ He had just that day come 
down from Akron ; that a button had come off his coat; that he 
had gone into a small tailor shop, kept, he thought, by a Hebrew. 
While sitting behind the stove, waiting for the button to be sewed 
on, a young man burst into the store, and, in an excited manner, 

* ran to the proprietor of the store, and said he had had a wonderful 
experience in Columbus. * * * From the talk of this young 

man, he was an employe of Mr. David R. Paige. He stated that 
Mr. Paige thought it better for him to come down and attend to 
the store (Mr. Paige keeping a store in Akron, and Mr. Paige 
being then in Columbus working in the interest of Mr. Payne). 
The young man said he had never seen so much money together 
as he saw in an inner room attached to the room occupied by Mr. 
Payne as headquarters. He said that he was the one who passed 
the members of the Legislature in to get the money. He raised 
his hands [illustrating], and said the money was in stacks.” 

J. J. Hall, of Akron, testified : il l had a conversation with Mr. 
Mueller—ex-Lieutenant-Governor Mueller. I don’t remember 
the time, but I was at his house. He lives in West Cleveland. 
He took me in his carriage and brought me into the city. I think 
I went out in a street car. Anyway, we were riding into the city 
from his residence, and he told me that by accident—he was here 


8 


in the city (Columbus)—that by accident lie went into Mr. Paige’s 
room. He said it looked to him like a banking-house. There was 
a large amount of money in plain view. He said he found out 
that he was not wanted there, and he went out. He went imme¬ 
diately and told Mr. Payne about it, before the election—told him 
they were using money here—told him what he had seen. Mr. 
Payne’s answer was: 4 You don’t suppose I would indorse any¬ 
thing of that kind, do you ? ’ He said he didn’t know. That was 
about all he said about it. That is all the conversation that I know 
of directlv with reference to this.” Mr. Hall testified further that 

4 / 

Mr. Mueller said he was at Columbus in the contest preliminary 
to the caucus, and it was then he went into Mr. Paige’s room by 
accident. 

In the report of the examination of Robert E. Reese, of Pauld¬ 
ing, who testified that he traveled about the State after the gen¬ 
eral election in October, 1883, in the interest of Henry B. Payne 
as a candidate for United States Senator, who paid him about 
$1,000 for services and expenses, the following occurs: “ Q. 

4 Were you about Mr. Paige’s headquarters in Columbus during 
the preliminary contest ? ’ A. ‘Yes, sir; I was there occasion¬ 
ally.’ Q. ‘ Did you see any money there ? ’ A. ‘I saw—I cannot 
say that I did.’ Q. ‘ Did you see a large sum of money about 
the headquarters of Mr. Paige ? ’ A. ‘ No—I don’t know. I 
saw them handling money, but I don’t know anything about the 
amount of it.’ Q. ‘ Did you see large sums of money at Mr. 
Paige’s rooms?’ A. ‘No, sir; I could not say that they were 
large.’” 

In the report of the examination of L. A. Russell, of Cleve¬ 
land, the following occurs, the statement of the witness imme¬ 
diately preceding it being, “I don’t know anything more of any 
importance to your investigation until perhaps about four o’clock 
in the afternoon”: “ Q. ‘ Do you mean the day before the caucus, 
or the night of the caucus?’ A. ‘The night of the caucus— 
yes, sir ; this was the afternoon of the jiight on which the caucus 


9 


was held. This was Tuesday afternoon, if the caucus was held on 
Tuesday night. It was, perhaps, about three o’clock—anywhere 
from two to four in the afternoon—I have no particular idea as to 
the exact time of day—while the crowd was very great, and the 
excitement was very high, and I was witnessing the process that 
was going on between the Payne headquarters, which was in 
Room 32, at the head of the hall, on the second floor of the Neil 
House, and Dave Paige’s room, which was in the corner of the 
story above. The process was, in short, this—I saw the thing 
going on with different men whom I knew: Some member of the 
Legislature would be in, or go into, the Payne headquarters, where 
Colonel Oliver Payne and Colonel Thompson were most of the 
time—or, at least, where I frequently saw them as I passed—and 
I always had to pass their open door as I went up stairs and came 
down stairs. Mr. IIeisle} T wanted me to go in, but I didn’t go in. 
I saw there were Colonel Payne, and Colonel Thompson, and 
other persons there, and Martin Foran, and John Farley, and 
others in the room. The process I spoke of was about this: Some 
men would be taken by a couple of men—say John Farley and 
Martin Foran—I think I saw these two persons with a member 
between them on one occasion, and I saw the same process gone 
through with other men—sometimes with men that I knew, and 
sometimes with men that I didn’t know—that would get on each 
side of a man, and start from the Payne headquarters, go along 
the hall to the end of the hall, where there is a stairway that goes 
up, and they would then be taken to Paige’s room, which was on 
the corner of the next floor. That was what 1 saw, and that was 
all I knew about that.’ Q. ‘ Was it significant to you ? ’ A. ‘ It 
was significant to me; either rightfully or wrongfully, I drew my 
conclusions as to that conduct. I thought I knew what it meant; 
but later on, after I had seen this process going on for perhaps 
an hour or so, a man whom I knew, and who is a citizen of Ohio, 
and not a politician in any way—I don’t know even that he is a 
Democrat, though I should presume he would naturally be one— 
came up to me in the Neil House, out toward the front door, 

2 


r 


io 

where there was a little possibility of getting some fresh air. 
This man came up to me. whom I knew, and whom I had seen 
before at a distance, standing around there, and I wondered 
why he was there, and he came up to me and said : ‘ Hello, Mr. 
Russell, you are here, I suppose, in the interest of your towns¬ 
man, Mr. Payne.’ I said: ‘ No, quite on the contrary, I am 
not; I am here forninst him.’ ‘ Why,’ he said, ‘you are a Demo¬ 
crat?’ I said:‘Yes.’ 4 Well,’ he said: ‘I knew you were a Dem¬ 
ocrat, and knew you were from Cleveland ; and you from Cleve¬ 
land, and you say you are not for Mr. Payne?’ I said: ‘No; lam 
not for Mr. Payne; I am here to beat Mr. Payne; I would not 
naturally vote for George H. Pendleton if I had a vote on the sub¬ 
ject, but I would vote for George H. Pendleton a good many times 
before I would vote for Mr. Payne, but lam here for General Ward.’ 
Well, he expressed very great surprise, and then he said: ‘I 
always thought you understood yourself pretty well, Mr. Russell, 
but I can tell you one thing, you are going to get left this time.’ 
I said: ‘ Oh, yes, I frequently get left; I am quite engaged in the 
business of getting left now, these days.’ So he expressed his 
surprise and left me, or was drifted away from me by the crowd, 
I don’t know which. At all events, in a minute or two he came 
back, and he put his hand on my shoulder and said: ‘ Look here, 
Mr. Russell, you won’t give me away if I tell you something, will 
you?’ I said: ‘ No, if it is anything proper for you to tell me, 
and if it is right for me to keep it to myself, I won’t give you 
away—I shouldn’t expect to give you away,’ or something like 
that. ‘ Well,’ he said, ‘ I just came down from Dave’s room.’ I 
said : ‘ Paige’s ?’ He said : ‘ Yes.’ ‘ Well,’ I said, ‘ did you get 
any boodle? You are not working for Payne, are you ?’ And 
he laughed and said: ‘Oh, no; I am not working for Payne or 
anybody else; but I know Payne is going to get there all the 
same.’ I said: ‘ How do you know it ?’ He said : ‘ Oh, I know 
it.’ ‘But,’ I said,‘you have no business to know it. I have 
some data to go on by which I know it, but I don’t suppose you 
have.’ He said : ‘ Yes, I have.’ I said : ‘ What is it ?’ Pie said: 


11 


‘ I will tell yon it you won’t tell anyone. Of course I can’t be 
mixed up in this thing.’ I said: ‘No, you haven’t any occasion 
to be mixed up in it. I would be sorry to see this political mud¬ 
dle hurt or injure you.’ He said : ‘ I was just up in Dave’s room 
about m 3 7 own business. I have been fooling around here nearly 
all day to see him. I had to see him. I came here on purpose to 
see him, and I came a pretty long distance, and I have got to get 
back; and I had some trouble to get to see him at all; but I 
finally did get to see him. I went up and went into his room— 
and he has got two rooms—and he called me into the back room, 
and I went back there, and he had two gentlemen back there 
with him, and he told me to sit down for a minute while he was 
talking with one of those men, and I did sit down ; and directly 
some more men came into the outside room, and he said hold on ! 
or something. I thought he was going to get rid of those two 
men he had there with him and talk to me and give me a chance 
at him. Instead of that he got up with one of those men and 
went out to see those men in the other room—the front room.’ 

He said that Mr. Paige went out with one of the 
men; that when he was gone out he sat there by the table, and he 
said there were canvass bags, and coin bags, and cases for green¬ 
backs littered and scattered around the room, and on the table, 
and on the floor,.and he said by his foot was one of the bags 
lying with something green sticking out from the end of it, and 
he said he thought it was one of those little green stamps—reve¬ 
nue stamps—on some smoking tobacco, and he kicked the bag off 
from it, and he saw it lying there all crumpled up, and just out of 
idle curiosit)’, more than anything else, he picked it up and found 
it to be a twenty or a ten-dollar greenback—I don’t know which 
now—and he showed it to this man that was sitting there—a 
stranger to him—and made some remark that Mr. Paige must 
have been throwing his money around loose, or some remark like 
that, and the man said: ‘That’s all right—keep it;’ and at that 
time Mr. Paige came back into the room again, and he said: 

* Mr. Paige ) 7 ou are careless with your money,’ and he offered him 


12 


the note, and he said that Mr. Paige kind of stammered as though 
he didn’t hear him or understand him very well at first, and when 
he told him that he had just picked it up off the floor, he said: 

‘ Oh, that’s all right; just keep it, if you picked it ofl the floor; 
it is not my money;’ and he said he did keep it, and he said: 

‘ Now, Mr. Russell, I don’t know much about your politics here, 
but you are going to get left—Mr. Payne is going to get there.’ 
He said : 4 You know when Dave goes for anything he gets there.’ 

I said: ‘Y^es, I judge so; and so he left me. This was to my 
mind-a pointer toward the fact that the stuff was being used there 
to buy votes for Mr. Payne. Whether it was actually so , or not — 
finally, and utterly, and absolutely—I don't know, but it was a pointer 
to my mind, and tended to produce the conviction in my mind, 
although my mind was prepared for that conviction already. 
Later in the evening—I drifted away from the man then, and 
didn’t see him an} 7 more, aud have not seen him since; but I 
know where that man is, and if this committee feels that it has 
any particular and express desire for that man’s name, I will com¬ 
municate with him, and if he says he is willing either to come 
here and come before you, or willing that I shall give you his 
name, I will do it willingly and gladly, for I have no desire to 
withhold any information from the committee, but I have a desire 
to respect the man’s confidence. * * * There is one thing I 

ought to say, although I don’t know what bearing it has, but it 
had a bearing in my mind, and had an influence in my mind in 
coming to the conclusion which I did. Perhaps about four o’clock 
in the afternoon—of the same afternoon—Judge Thurman’s letter 
came out, and if it had come an hour sooner, or an hour later, 
either one, I think it would have defeated Payne’s election in the 
caucus; but it came at just such a time that they just had time 
enough to rally, and more time would have broken them, or less 
—either one; and after the appearance of that letter the first 
word that the Payne gang could get out about it was that it was 
a forgery—and that word didn’t get out for some minutes after, 
the letter was read over. I don’t know how they circulated it 


13 


around there, whether in the Columbus Times or not, but it seems 
to me that I saw the manuscript of that letter; but I think when 
the Times came out, and the letter got bruited about quietly and 
generally, it knocked them silly; but after a few minutes, out 
from the Payne headquarters came the positive statement, which 
was circulated by fellows who were legging around there for 
Payne, that that letter was a forgery. However, that could not 
win much, because it would be only the very ignorant that would 
believe the statement that it was a forgery. Any man that had 
any knowledge of Judge Thurman knew that that letter came 
from Judge Thurman, without anything else than a mere perusal 
of it, because it rang in every sentence and word of it of Judge 
Thurman ; and as soon as they found they could not stem the tide 
with the forgery cry, and as soon as the forgery cry began to die 
down, there was a fiendish activity observable between the Payne 
headquarters and Dave Paige’s room. Q. ‘ There was a fiendish 
activity, as you express it ? ’ A. ‘ Yes, that is the way to describe 
it, because my own belief upon that subject—but of that I have 
no legal proof—but my own belief is that the fear that that letter 
would destroy them was so acute and clear among the Payne mana¬ 
gers, that where men had been promised before then, they got 
quick performance. I believe—it is my suspicion, and was my 
opinion and belief—that after the coming out of the Thurman 
letter, and the Payne managers observed that the cry of forgery 
fell dead or flat, the tactics were changed, and their policy was 
to get boodle right on to those men, in order to hold them under 
that fire.” 

In this connection we quote from the report of the examination 
of W. A. Taylor, then managing editor of the Cincinnati News- 
Journal, who was at Columbus during the Senatorial contest: 
“ Q. * Colonel, do you remember the impression made upon the 
Democracy assembled here at the appearance of Judge Thurman’s 
letter?’ * * A. 4 It had a very startling effect for a political 

document, and created universal comment; and my recollection, 
and my best belief, is that nine out of every ten Democrats, either 


\ 


14 


in Columbus as residents here, or from abroad, indorsed every 
word, and expressed the hope that the advice ot Senator Thurman 
would be taken, and that either General Ward or Mr. Pendleton 
would be the nominee.’ Q. ‘They all understood Senator Thur¬ 
man to mean by that that improper methods were being resorted 
to in behalf of Senator Payne?’ A. ‘That was the universal 
opinion among the Democracy.’ ” 

The letter of Judge Thurman, referred to in this testimony, is 
appended to this report. 

ATTEMPTED BRIBERY. 

The Committee discovered two instances in which attempted 
bribery in the Senatorial canvass was reported by members of the 
Sixty-Sixth General Assembly. The testimony taken as to what 
those members reported was, in brief, as follows: 

Case of Ex-Representative Kahle. 

Mr. Kahle testified that 0. B. Ramey, the Senator from his dis¬ 
trict. offered him five thousand dollars to vote for Payne for Sen- 
ator, and that he made this proposition to him on two occasions, 
on one of which he said that he would stick the money in one of 
witness’s pockets. As to what occurred the last time he made the 
offer, the stenographer’s notes are quoted in full as follows: Q. 
“ Did he say: ‘ I have taken that, and you are a damned fool if 
you don’t take it ?’” A. “No, he did not say it that way. He 
came into the House, and got me by the collar, and took me into 
the corner. He said : ‘That offer is still open, Kahle ; what are 
you going to do about it ’ ? At the same time he read a message 
that he had received from the leading Democrats in Ottawa, re¬ 
questing him to vote for Pendleton, signed by General Rice, Zel¬ 
lers, and others—the leading Democrats in our town. It appeared 
to me those names were the leading Democrats of Ottawa. He 
read that message, and asked me what I was going to do about 
it. I said : ‘ What are you going to do about it ’? He said : ‘ By 



15 


G—d, I am going to do it ’ (referring to money). I said : ‘ What 
becomes of the message’? He said : ‘ I don’t care a G—dd—n 
for that.’ ” 

• 

Hon. R. H. Higgins, a member of the last and also of the pres¬ 
ent House, testified that Mr. Kahle told him, in confidence, about 
the time of but subsequent to the caucus, that he (Kahle) had 
been offered a handsome sum to vote for Payne, and, according 
to the recollection of witness, Mr. Kahle said the offer was made 
by the Senator from his district, Mr. Ramey. 

Hon. George W. Hull, a member of the last and also of the 
present House, testified that Mr. Kahle told him that he (Kahle) 
had been offered five thousand dollars to vote for Payne. 

W. A. Taylor testified that Mr. Kahle told him that Senator 
Ramey was a man of very bad character, and had approached him 
(Kahle) with an offer of money to support Mr. Payne. 

Hon. G. W. Sharp, a member of the last House, testified that 
Mr. Kahle told him, last winter, that Senator Ramey offered him 
(Kahle) five thousand dollars to support Mr. Payne. 

Ex-Senator Ramey, in his testimony, denies that he made the 
offer testified to by Mr. Kahle. He admits, however, that he re¬ 
ceived a telegram such as described, and about the time stated, 
by Mr. Kahle, but says that he did not mention the fact to anyone 
except, perhaps, his wife. He testified also, that Mr. Kahle en¬ 
tertained a hostile feeling toward him because of his delay in ask¬ 
ing action by the Senate on a local bill introduced in the House 
by Mr. Kahle; and that “Mr. Kahle did not show a very kindly 
spirit toward me from the beginning.” 

In this connection a query is suggested as to whether the lack 
of “kindly spirit” mentioned by Mr. Ramey was caused by the 
offer testified to by Mr. Kahle, especially as any feeling concern¬ 
ing the local bill referred to could not have existed “from the 
beginning.” And attention is called to the fact that Mr. Kahle 
mentions the receipt of a telegram by Mr. Ramey, which, he says, 


16 


the latter read to him when he made him the offer of a bribe the 
second time, but which telegram, or one of like purport, from the 
same persons, received about the same time, and the only one of 
like purport received, Mr. Ramey says he did not speak of to any 
person except, perhaps, his wife. And attention is called, also, to 
the fact testified to that Mr. Kahle told of the offer by Mr. Ramey 
about the time of the Senatorial caucus. 

Case of Representative Hull. 

Mr. Hull, a member of the last and also of the present House, 
testified that Hon. Charles Negley said to him, two or three days 
prior to the Senatorial caucus, that he (Negley) believed the wit¬ 
ness could get twenty-five hundred dollars to vote against Pen¬ 
dleton and for Payne; that “ they” [presumed to mean the latter’s 
managers] wanted to humiliate Pendleton by giving to Ward 
more votes than to him; and that if witness would vote for 
Ward he could get the money; but that he did not remember 
that Mr. Negley stated who would furnish the money, and did not, 
at the time of testifying, believe Mr. Negley meant what he said 
as an offer. Mr. Hull was recalled by the Committee the next 
day, and testified that one Alexander Sands (who is spoken of by 
a witness as a f< notorious lobbyist—so understood among news¬ 
paper men, and all statesmen, and pretty much everybody else,”) 
asked him, perhaps an evening or two prior to the Senatorial 
caucus, why he could not vote for Payne for Senator, and that he 
responded that he would not be very liable to vote for a man or 
for parties that had used money in his county to secure his defeat; 
and that Mr. Sands replied, “That’s all right; he would reimburse 
you for that—the amount of expenses you had incurred. Suppose 
you get enough more to make it an object?” On the first day of 
the examination of this witness he testified that money was fur¬ 
nished during his candidacy, by certain parties in the city of 
Cleveland known to be friends of Payne—naming John H. Far¬ 
ley in this connection—to defeat his election (on the score that he 


17 


was believed to favor Pendleton), and to elect an independent 
Democratic candidate. 

Judge Samuel S. Yoder, of Lima, testified that he was in the 
city of Columbus during the preliminary work which led to the 
nomination, in the Democratic caucus of 1884, of Henry 13. Pavne 
for United States Senator, and that Mr. Hull told him, the night 
before the Senatorial caucus, in Mr. Pendleton’s room, of a con¬ 
versation he had had with Colonel Pavne—“ that there was some 

%j 

difficulty in our county up there [the witness and Mr. Hull reside 
in the same county]. It was claimed that John H. Farley had 
sent some rrionev. There was a bolt—two Democratic candidates, 
or rather an independent, and the Republicans indorsed him. It 
was claimed that Mr. Farley had sent money there to help Shane 
[the independent candidate], and in opposition to Hull. Payne 
asked Hull what made him a Pendleton man—why he did not 
come out with them—what he had against them, or something of 
that kind. He said it would not be reasonable to expect that he 
should support a man that had sent money into the county to de¬ 
feat him. And he said something about Colonel Payne making 
the remark, ‘ What do you care about that ? Suppose that is 
made good, and some more on top of it ? ’ or something of that 

kind.” Witness testified further that Mr. Hull said he told Payne 

*/ 

that he had been put to additional expense on account of that 
opposition, and that it was in reply to that that Payne made his 
remark. 

Hon. G. W. Sharp, of Millersburg, testified that, prior to the 
Senatorial caucus, in one of the halls of the Neil House, at Co¬ 
lumbus, Mr. Hull told him that some one had made propositions 
of bribery to him in the interests of the election of Mr. Payne. 

L. A. Russell, of Cleveland, testified that, on the night of the 
Senatorial caucus, and just before the caucus assembled, in the hall 
of the Neil House in front of the Pendleton and Ward headquar¬ 
ters, Mr. Hull came up to him, manifesting very considerable 
symptoms of excitement, and said: * 4 Mr. Russell, a man just 

3 


18 


offered me twenty-five hundred dollars in currency, in an open 
envelope, to vote for Payne, and by G—d I am going over to that 
caucus, and I am going to get up in the caucus and name the man 
and denounce him.” 


SUSPECTED BRIBERY. 

Humors as to suspected bribery, with which were connected the 
names of Messrs. Mooney and Roche, members of the House, and 
Messrs. White and Harney, members of the Senate, of the Sixty- 
sixth General Assembly, all of whom voted in caucus for Henry 
B. Payne for United States Senator, were traced by the committee 
until developments, which we regard as important, were reached, 
as follows : 


Case of Ex-Representatives Mooney and Roche. 

Vernon E. Hanna, of Columbus, testified that at the time of the 
Democratic Senatorial caucus, in 1884, he roomed at the family 
residence of W. P. Brown, in said city, and that two members of 
the General Assembly—Messrs. Mooney and Roche—roomed in 
the same building; that at this time those members did not have 
keys to the house; that on the night of said caneus he agreed with 
Mr. Brown that, as they would probably not be in until late, he 
would admit them to the house', as he would probably be up until 
they came; that he waited for their return until about four o’clock 
in the morning, when they came; that he admitted them to the 
house, and that after they entered there was a conversation be¬ 
tween them, in his presence, in reference to money that they had, 
and that some feeling was manifested because one had received 
fifty dollars more than the other—one seeming to feel pretty hard 
that he should not have had as much as the other; that they had 
money in their hands, in rolls, which the witness saw, but were 
not counting it; that he thought the respective amounts men¬ 
tioned by them as having been received were three hundred dol¬ 
lars and three hundred and fifty dollars; that he was not ac- 


19 


quainter! with them, and fixes their identity by the circumstances 
mentioned and others; and that in his mind he connected the fact 
of the possession of that money with rumors in the community that 
money was being used to influence votes for United States Sena¬ 
tor—not from any remark made by the men, but because of exist¬ 
ing circumstances. 

James Finley Brown, of Columbus, testified that he is a brother 
of W. P. Brown, mentioned by Vernon E. Hanna, the witness 
last quoted, and lived with him; that he is acquainted with Messrs. 
Mooney and Roche, Representatives in the Sixty-sixth General 
Assembly from Cuyahoga county; that they roomed at said broth¬ 
er’s house in the forepart of the session of 1884; that the former 
stayed during the whole session, and the latter about two or three 
weeks; that in the afternoon of a certain day, which, according 
to his best impression, was of the date that Henry B. Payne was 
nominated for United States Senator, they asked about keys, and 
wanted an arrangement so they could get in that night; that his 
impression is they attended the Senatorial caucus that night; 
and that he thinks the nomination of Mr. Payne that night was 
announced in the newspapers the next morning. 

The committee has received from Mr. Mooney, by mail, his 
affidavit denying that he roomed or lodged at Mr. Brown’s “ es¬ 
tablishment” on the night of the Democratic Senatorial caucus, 
and stating that he had not previously lodged or visited there, 
and did not go there to lodge for several days thereafter. But in 
the affidavit he omits to state where he was. the night of the caucus. 

Case of Ex-Senator Elmer White. 

The testimony in this instance is voluminous, and therefore 
only a brief synopsis of it is given. It develops the following 
facts: That Mr. White was possessed of but little means when 
elected State Senator in 1883; that he owned no property other 
than a half interest in a newspaper establishment in the town of 
Defiance, which was mortgaged to almost its full value; that 


20 


within two years last past the mortgage indebtedness upon said es¬ 
tablishment has nearly all been paid, and the establishment remod¬ 
eled and very much improved ; that early in the year 1884 the prop¬ 
erty in which he resides was purchased of one Simon Peter Moon, 
by his father, the deed for which bears date March 22, 1884, the 
purchase having been negotiated a month or six weeks earlier; 
that the price paid for said residence was $4,200, of which $2,000 
was paid at the time of purchase; that four promissory notes, 
hearing six per cent, interest, payable one year from time of pur¬ 
chase, with privilege of paying sooner, were given for the balance ; 
that three of the notes, amounting to $1,700, were paid May 8, 
1884, or within two months after they were given, and that the 
other was paid when due; that all the money paid for this resi¬ 
dence was in clean bills, of large denomination—chiefly $100, and 
none less than $50; that the purchaser has not been engaged in 
any business for at least three years and over; that he emphatically 
refused to state the source from which he received the monev,and 
did not remember the kind of bills it consisted of, but admitted 
that at the time of the purchase he had no money deposited in 
bank; that he owns a small amount of real estate, in another 
county than that in which he resides—“two acres, over east of 
the town ” of Tiffin—but has not sold any real estate for several 
years, and has sold but a small amount of personal property with¬ 
in three years ; and that ex-Senator White, the son of the preacher, 
who lives with his father in said residence, has had the residence 
remodeled and improved, upon a contract made by him and in 
his name, at an expense of about $2,000, which he paid with his 
own individual checks, and has furnished the interior somewhat 
expensively. 


Mr. White, senior, when asked where he got the money that 
he paid for the residence property referred to, said, “ I don’t sup¬ 
pose you need to know where I got it; ” when asked how long he 
had had it, said, “ That is a matter of mine. * # I get my 

money where I choose, and hold it as long as I please;” and when 
asked if the $2,000 cash payment was his money, said, “ Certainly 


21 


it was mine. How in hell could I pay for the property, unless it 
was my money ? I took the deed in my name, and have it yet.” 
To another question he answered, “ It is no matter where I got 
the money.” It is rather singular that although the father and 
son have resided together since the latter part of 1882, constitut¬ 
ing but one family, the father refuses, and the son testifies that he 
is unable, to tell from what source was obtained the $4,200 paid 
to Simon Peter Moon for that homestead. It is reasonable to be¬ 
lieve that the ex-Senator should, under the circumstances, know 
enough about his father’s affairs to be able to state with an ap¬ 
proach to certainty the source from which this money was de¬ 
rived ; and surely, in view of the strain to which the son’s reputa¬ 
tion for integrity had been subjected since the Senatorial election 
of 1884, the father ought to have gladly embraced the opportunity 
afforded him to account for its possession. 

There is some confusion in the testimony concerning the mort¬ 
gage indebtedness upon the newspaper property of which ex- 
Senator White is part owner; but it is fair to state, that the 
amount that has been paid by way of cancellation, the probable 
cost of the improvements put upon the newspaper property and 
the family residence, the expenditure for furniture, the fact that the 
marked improvement in Mr. White’s financial affairs is of com¬ 
paratively recent date, the admitted fact that his only source of 
income is the newspaper establishment, and other matters, indi¬ 
cate a degree of prosperity both remarkable and unusual in rural 
newspaper business. 

In this connection the committee deem it proper to state that 
ex-Senator White was President pro tempore of the Senate, and 
Chairman of the Joint Legislative caucus that nominated Mr. 
Payne. 

Case of Ex-Senator 0. B. Ramey. 

All the facts developed by the inquiry concerning the charge 
made by ex-Represeutative Kahle, that Mr. Ramey offered him 


22 


$5,000 to vote for Henry B. Payne in the Senatorial caucus, may 
be found on page 14, and a repetition of them is not necessary. 
But as the testimony of Mr. Kahle was suggestive as to the ex¬ 
tent of Mr. Barney’s interest in behalf of Mr. Payne, and as 
rumors reached the committee of certain alleged financial trans¬ 
actions of Mr. Ramev and his wife that, if true, seemed sufii- 
ciently remarkable to call for investigation in connection with the 
suggestiveness mentioned, inquiry was instituted as to these al¬ 
leged transactions, and resulted in the following developments : 

V. H. Ketch urn, President of the First National Bank of To¬ 
ledo, testified that Mrs. Barney deposited $2,500 in his bank July 
24, 1884, and took three certificates therefor—two of $1,000 each, 
and one of $500 ; that these certificates were all paid to Mr. 
Barney, having been assigned to him—one of $1,000 August 29, 
1884, and the others September 1, 1884, and that he can find no 
record of any deposit in his bank by Mr. Barney. 

Daniel Harmon, of Toledo, testified that his social relations 
with Mr. Barney had been intimate for eight or ten years; that 
Mrs. Barney came to him in Toledo in the spring of 1884, and 
said she had some money to deposit; that her husband had sent 
her and told her to go to him, and to deposit the money in some 
good bank, where it would be safe; that he went with her to the 
First National Bank of Toledo, where she deposited $2,500 ; that 
Mr. Barney told him, in the spring or summer of 1884, he had given 
his wife $6,500 ; that he did not say just when he had given it to 
her, but he judged from the conversation, it was just before he 
told him ; that Mr. Barney told him his wife virtually had all he 
owned; that he had nothing himself, and if she were to take all 
her property to herself he would not have anything; that he said 
he got this $6,500 from the sale of property in West Virginia; 
that this talk with Mr. Barney occurred right after the adjourn¬ 
ment of the Legislature in 1884—the Monday following the ad¬ 
journment—and after Mrs. Barney made the deposit referred to, 


and that he thinks $6,500 could not have been drawn from Mr. 
Ramey’s business in the spring of 1884 with safety. 

Ex-Senator Ramey testified that his business is carried on under 
the name of 0. B. Ramey & Co., and that he is the sole owner; 
that on the 12th day of May, 1884, he sold some real estate in 
Wheeling, W. Va., which he had previously bought with his own 
money; that there was a mortgage on the property, which the 
purchaser assumed, and that the balance of the consideration, 
which was paid to him in cash, was about $4,500 or $4,600; that 
he has sold no property in Wheeling since that time; that he 
brought that money home with him and gave it to his wife, and 
she put it in her trunk; that he kuows of his wife having de¬ 
posited $2,500 in the First National Bank of Toledo; that she 
kept the money he gave her in her trunk until she made that de¬ 
posit ; that when she made the deposit she gave him the balance 
of what he had given her, amounting to $2,000, some of which 
he loaned, and some he used in his business, hut did not deposit 
any of it in bank; that his wife gave him the certificates of deposit 
received from the Toledo bank, and he drew the money from the 
bank, some of which he loaned, and some he used in his business; 
that this money was his wife’s when it was deposited and when it 
was drawn out; that the $4,500 he gave her she gave back to him 
to take care of, and that he keeps her affairs and his all separate; 
and that there are two banks in Ottawa (where he resides and 
carries on his business), both very solvent, so far as he knows, and 
he keeps running accounts there, but that his wife did not have any 
account in an Ottawa bank. The following questions and answers 
are quoted in full: Q. “ Why did you give this money to your 
wife?” A. “Well, it was a common thing to give my wife 
money.” Q. “And you gave her then $4,600 ?” A. “Yes, sir.” 
Q. “And she put it in her trunk ?” A. “Yes, sir.” Q. “Had 
your wife, before that time, been in the habit of keeping large 
sums of money in her trunk ?”. A. “ It was a common thing for 
her to keep money in her trunk; she often had money by her.” 


24 


Q. “ Didn’t you regard that as a very insecure place to keep so 
large a sum of money?” A. “ Well, that was a thing that she 
was looking after; I didn’t tell her to keep it there any length of 
time.” Q. “ What was the objection to depositing this $2,500 
which you gave your wife in an Ottawa bank ?” A. “ It was a 
calculation of tier’s at the time to invest it in Wheeling rolling- 
mill stock, and she decided that she would take that much money 
and put it in there, and so she said she would take it and deposit 
it in some other bank, and it came about in this shape. At that 
time I objected to the investment, and she decided that she was 
going to have that much that she could put her hands on if she 
wanted to invest it, so she could do so in that kind of stock.” 

Notwithstanding there is a want of full concurrence in the 
foregoing testimony (there being a discrepancy as to dates), we 
think there is significance enough in it to warrant us in embody¬ 
ing it in the report. 

CONCLUSION. 

In the course of this investigation fifty-five witnesses have been 
examined. In the report only the most salient features of the 
testimony are embraced—such portions as bear directly upon what 
it is fair to assume falls within the legitimate scope of the inquiry. 
There is a large amount of cumulative testimony, which is im¬ 
portant as showing the general prevalence of the opinion that 
improper methods were resorted to to secure the result reached 
by the Democratic Senatorial caucus of January 8, 1884, and the 
reasons therefor, and which constitutes a valuable contribution, in 
tangible form, to the history of that occasion. A number of clews 
furnished were not followed, because we were convinced that they 
could lead only to points at which further pursuit would become 
necessary, but which could not be passed without authority to 
reach beyond the limits of the State for witnesses. And much 
anonymous information was ignored by the committee chiefly for 
the same reason. 


25 


Although, as stated in the outset, the testimony developed 
nothing of an inculpating character concerning the members of 
this House named in the resolution of inquiry, we believe that 
circumstances surrounding the election of Henry B. Payne as one 
of the Senators to represent the State of Ohio in the Congress of 
the United States, as presented by the testimony, are such as to 
warrant us in recommending that an authenticated copy of the 
testimony and report be transmitted to the President of the Uni¬ 
ted States Senate for the information of the body of which Sena¬ 
tor Payne is a member, and for such action as it may deem 
advisable. 

Wherefore, the committee offer for adoption the accompanying 
resolution. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Thomas A. Cowgill, 
George C. Rawlins, • 
Emmett Tompkins, 

Committee. 


♦ 


4 


26 


SENATOR THURMAN’S LETTER. 


This letter, referred to by two witnesses, appeared in the Co¬ 
lumbus Daily Times in the following form : 

SENATOR THURMAN WRITES. 

The editor of the Times called upon ex-Senator Allan G. Thur¬ 
man at the United States, this afternoon, and asked him to let 
the Democracy of Ohio know his views. He stepped to his table, 
called for paper, and this is what he wrote: 

“I have nothing against either of the candidates. They are all 
men of ability. My personal relations with each of them have 
always been friendly and pleasant. But there is something that 
shocks me in the.idea of crushing men like Pendleton and Ward, 
who have devoted the best portions of their lives to the mainte¬ 
nance of Democracy, by the combination against them of personal 
hatred and overgrown wealth. I hear Payne men say : ‘We can 
not support Pendleton because we disapprove of his civil service 
reform bill,’ forgetting that convention after convention of the 
Democratic party, both State and National, had resolved in favor 
of civil service reform, and also forgetting that the Republicans 
now in office are just as liable to be turned out as if the Pendleton 
bill had never passed. I do not advocate that bill. I think that 
it ought to be amended or repealed; but I would not slaughter a 
life-long Democrat because in a long public service he happened 
to make one mistake. 

Ct But if these gentlemen can not support Pendleton, why can 
not they support Ward ? He is not responsible for the civil serv¬ 
ice reform bill. Indeed, I have always understood that he disap¬ 
proves of it. That he is a man of ability, every man must admit; 
that he has performed immense labor for our party, no one will 
deny. Why, then, prefer Payne to him? The answer, I fear, is 
perfectly plain. There never has been any machine politics in the 



27 


Democratic party of Ohio. We have, as a party, been freer from 
bossism than any party that ever existed. But some men seem 
to think that we ought to have a machine, amply supplied with 
money to work it, and under absolute control of a boss or bosses, 
to dictate who shall and who shall not receive the honors and 
rewards within the gift of the party. To set up such a machine it 
is necessary, in the first place, to kill the men who have heretofore 
enjoyed the confidence of the party—the men whose ability, hard 
labor, and principles did so much to keep the party together in 
the terrible ordeal through which it has passed. I am unwilling 
to see this done. It does not concern me personally, for I am a 
mere private citizen, having no expectation or wish to ever hold 
office again. But although I have never sought for revenge upon 
my enemies in the party—if I have had any—on the other hand, 
I have never deserted my friends, and I do not want to be called 
on to be a pall-bearer at their political funerals. I want to see 
our officers elected in the good old-fashioned Democratic mode, 
and not by some new-fangled mode that, to say the least of it, 
wears an evil-omened and inauspicious aspect. I want to see all 
true Democrats have a fair chance, according to their merits, and 
do not want to see a political cut-throat bossism inaugurated for 
the benefit of a close party corporation or syndicate.” 


« 
















































































































* 







































































































